THOUGHTS ON HEALTH, SAFETY, AND “GREEN CHEMISTRY” IN THE PRINTMAKING STUDIO

With so much information available on substances used in the printmaking studio from sources such as MSDS, OSHA, EPA, and DOT, it can be a challenging task to assess the relative risks of use of these substances. When the goal of ‘Sustainability’ is added to the mix, the decision-making process can seem daunting.

What do we mean by “Health”, “Safety”, and “Sustainability” in the context of printmaking? “Health” and “Safety” are closely related, in that “Safety” implies freedom from risk, especially with regards to “Health.” We tend to think of “Safety” as freedom from risk to health resulting from a specific event such as a splash, spill, ingestion, or explosion. But the more insidious health risks are those that result from longer-term exposures to vapors or skin contact with liquids that do not seem instantaneously irritating but in fact can have a cumulative harmful effect on health.

“Sustainability” has broader implications, depending on the context. What we mean in this discussion is that materials are derived from renewable resources (“Bio-Based”) through processes that are carbon-neutral or minimally harmful ecologically, and are bio-degradable to substances that are not harmful to the environment.

Fortunately the choices available to the printmaker now include a portfolio of ‘new’ options to the ‘traditional’ petroleum-based materials now in wide-spread use. These bio-based options have been developed and commercialized in many industries in response to increasingly stringent regulations imposed by regulatory agencies and recognition by many practitioners of the workplace exposure risks and environmental costs associated with the previous generation of substances.

A historical point to note is that petroleum-based materials are not ‘traditional’ to printmakers in the strictest sense, since many did not exist as commercially available products prior to the late 19’th or early 20’th century. Many petroleum distillates such as acetone, benzene, toluene, and xylene and blended products such as mineral spirits, lacquer thinner, naphtha, lithotine, and liquid asphaltum would have been unknown to printmakers prior to that era. As these ‘new’ materials became commercially available they were adopted by printmakers because of lower cost and/or better functionality than the previously available substances. Workplace exposure risks and environmental consequences were often underappreciated or ignored.

Printmakers today have a similar opportunity to evaluate and adopt ‘new’ bio-based materials as replacements for the previous generation of petroleum-based substances. New information about safety issues and health risks associated with long-term exposure to these materials coupled with a heightened level of consciousness of their impact on the environment is driving innovation in this area.

It is important to note that just because a substance is ‘bio-based’ does not in itself mean it is safer or less harmful to the environment than a substance that is petroleum-based. Many ‘bio-based’ substances are inherently toxic to humans and/or the environment…witness animal venoms and poisonous plant substances. Our task as evaluators of alternative substances is to assess the relative health and safety issues along with environmental, functional, and cost considerations.

With this task in mind, our research was guided by five principles. In order to qualify as a viable alternative to ‘traditional’ substances, our recommended bio-based substances must be:

Functionally equivalent or superior when applied properly;

As safe or safer to the printmaking practitioner;

Less toxic to the environment and bio-degradable;

‘Sustainable’ in the sense of being derived from renewable resources;

Comparable in terms of cost per use.

After much of our ongoing work was completed, we became aware of the codification of the 12 principles of “Green Chemistry” in 1998 by Paul Anastas (then of the EPA) and John C. Warner which helped to put the theory into practice. We were gratified to note that our recommended alternatives fit nicely into these guidelines. For more information on Green Chemistry, visit the EPA’s web page on the topic at http://www.epa.gov/gcc/.